Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010111732026 2026:GAU-AS:8497 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./807/2026 SRI JAYANTA BARUAH SON OF LATE BIBHUTI BARUA, RESIDENT OF SALKATHANI TEA ESTATE, P.O. P.S. SAPEKHATI, DISTRICT CHARAIDEO, ASSAM - 785692 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K SAHEWALLA, S SENGUPTA,MR P GOGOI Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, :: BEFORE :: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA O R D E R 15.06.2026 Heard Mr. K. Agarwal, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.K. Sahewalla, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, the learned Page No.# 2/4 Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 2. This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of Sessions CHA Case No.45/2025 arising out of Sapekhati P.S. Case No.01/2022 pending in the court of the Sessions Judge, Charaideo, Assam. 3. A person called Basanta Garh had killed a man named Biju Tanti. In fact, Biju Tanti was severely assaulted by Basanta Garh. Biju Tanti was taken to the hospital. Doctors discharged him after giving treatment. On reaching home, Biju Tanti succumbed to his injuries. The wife of Biju Tanti immediately went to meet the present petitioner Shri Jayanta Baruah, who was the Manager at that time. Jayanta Baruah allegedly told the wife of Biju Tanti that matters relating to Tea Garden should be kept confined within the Tea Garden area and should not be allowed to go out of the Garden area. Jayanta Baruah advised Anjali Tanti, the wife of Biju Tanti to bury his dead body. 4. Some days later, Basanta Garh again attacked another person. But this time, the matter went out of the confines out of the Tea Gaden area. This time, the police came and they came to know about the death of Biju Tanti. Police registered the case being Sapekethi P.S. Case No.01/2022 against the present petitioner Jayanta Baruah under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After investigation, police filed the charge sheet against the present petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court framed the charge under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner. 6. Mr. Agarwala has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that was delivered in Dinesh Kumar Kalidas Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 313. Paragraph 11 of the said judgment is quoted as under: “11. In Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra [Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC Page No.# 3/4 502 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 426] , this Court discussed Kalawati [Kalawati and Ranjit Singh v. State of H.P., (1953) 1 SCC 86 : AIR 1953 SC 131 : 1953 Cri LJ 668] , Palvinder Kaur [Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1952) 2 SCC 177 : AIR 1952 SC 354 : 1953 Cri LJ 154] , Suleman Rehiman [Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 829 : 1968 Cri LJ 1013] and V.L. Tresa [V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala, (2001) 3 SCC 549 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 573] among others. The essential ingredients for conviction under Section 201 IPC have been discussed at para 18: (Sukhram case [Sukhram v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 7 SCC 502 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 426] , SCC pp. 510-11) “18. The first paragraph of the section contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation. To bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence; and (iv) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown.” 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 8. At this stage, it would be fruitful to have a brief visit to Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 201 of the IPC reads as under: “201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.— Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any infor- mation respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;if a capital offence.— shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;if punishable with Page No.# 4/4 imprisonment for life.— and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.— and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.” 9. To bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence; and (iv) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. 10. In this case, there are materials for a prima facie case under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the present petitioner Jayanta Baruah. Therefore, interference of this Court is unnecessary. Accordingly, the criminal petition is found to be devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant